Review: Nokia 808 PureView

When the Nokia 808 PureView was announced earlier this year its 41MP camera sensor (for a maximum output resolution of 38MP) made headlines all over the tech industry. Not only does it feature the highest-resolution sensor of any mobile phone camera, but at the time of writing, the 808 PureView features the highest-resolution sensor of any current camera outside of highly specialist (and very costly) medium format equipment.

We've been eager to gets our hands on an 808 since the phone was announced, and a loan sample finally arrived in our Seattle office recently. We've been using it ever since. Please note though that this article doesn't touch on the 808 PureView's performance as a phone. That's not what interests us. We want to see what it's like as a camera...

Features

The Nokia 808 PureView's large CMOS sensor has 41MP total, outputting a maximum of 38MP (resolution drops to 36MP in 16:9 aspect ratio). Such a high resolution sensor would be little more than a stunt if the camera specifications aren't up to scratch, but Nokia has designed the 808 to be a serious photographic tool. As well as some pretty impressive hardware, Nokia has also included a raft of enthusiast-friendly photographic features in the 808 including manual control over white balance, ISO and exposure (via exposure compensation and bracketing). Exposure compensation is as good as it gets though, in terms of manual exposure control - the 808 does not offer PASM modes (not unsurprisingly).

This diagram shows the size of the Nokia 808 PureView's 1/1.2" sensor in comparison to those used in various compact cameras and mobile phones. A Four Thirds sensor is included for scale.

As you can see, the 808 PureView is packing quite an impressive sensor, much larger than those found in compact cameras, and not that much smaller than the CX-format sensors used by Nikon in its 1-system and Sony's recently-announced Cyber-shot RX100.

The Finnish company is at pains to point out that when it comes to image capture, the 808's headline specification of 41MP is far from the whole story. In fact, one of the reasons why Nokia has incorporated such a high pixel count is to allow the 808 to produce better quality lower-resolution images (3MP, 5MP or 8MP).

The 808 PureView runs the effectively-defunct Symbian operating system. Future PureView-equipped phones will almost certainly run a version of Microsoft's Windows Phone OS.

The interesting stuff for us is on the back of the phone. The 808's camera module is quite a lump - not surprising considering the size of the sensor. The 808 also features a xenon flash and F2.4 Carl Zeiss lens.

The camera interface is relatively simple but versatile. In the PureView capture modes (8MP/5MP/3MP) you can zoom by simply swiping vertically on the screen.

Nokia makes a spring-loaded clamp with a tripod screw on the base to allow you to use the 808 on a tripod for self-portraits, group shots, or long exposures.

While it might sound counterintuitive to shoot a 38MP camera at 3MP, it actually makes a lot of sense in a device of this type. Apart from anything else, if you are one of those people whose first reaction to this product was to scream 'you don't need 41MP in a camera phone! The world has gone mad! The sky is falling in!' in a sense you were right - most people simply don't need to capture such high-resolution images on a phone.

But what you probably do want from a cellphone camera is good image quality, decent speed and responsiveness, and wouldn't it be nice to have a zoom, too? That's what the 808's lower-resolution PureView modes are designed to allow.

PureView (3/5/8MP)

Putting optical zooms into cellphone cameras is hard. Really really hard, which is why manufacturers tend to include digital zooms instead. Effectively just cropping and upsizing, conventional digital zoom kills image quality. Normally, the instinct of any serious digital photographer would be to run away from 'digital zoom' features for precisely this reason. But the 808 is very far from conventional.

Images captured in the 808's PureView modes are created by oversampling from the sensor's full resolution. At the 808's 'native' focal length of 28mm equivalent, the oversampling ratio is 14:1 for 3MP images, compared to 8:1 for 5MP and 5:1 for 8MP.

In Nokia's words, 'pixel oversampling combines many pixels to create a single (super) pixel'. In theory then, at 28mm (equivalent) - i.e., without any 'zoom', the camera's 3MP PureView output should give the best critical image quality, followed by 5MP, then 8MP, and then 38MP. When fully zoomed in, all four output modes will give the same pixel-level image quality, since at this point there is no oversampling going on -as incated by '1:1' in the graph above.

PureView 'Zoom'

How much you can 'zoom' using the 808 depends on what output resolution mode you're in. If you're shooting at full resolution you can't zoom at all - you're stuck with the lens' native 28mm (equivalent) focal length. In 3MP PureView mode you get the equivalent of a 3.6X 'zoom' - this drops to roughly 3X in 5MP mode, and about 2X in 8MP mode. The table below shows four images, taken at the 'longest' extent of the 'zoom' in each of the 808's output resolution modes.

38 MP (1X)

8 MP (~2X)

5 MP (~3X)

3 MP (~3.6X)

Compared to today's travelzoom compacts a 3.6X zoom is nothing much to shout about, but it's better than no zoom at all or - worse - a conventional digital zoom that upsizes cropped images into mush. Even a 2X zoom in 8MP mode allows a useful degree of control over framing, as you can see from the image above.

Comments

wow- I checked out the studio comparison scene at ISO400 and 800 against some pretty strong compact camera competitors at 8Mp. Like the Classic Cannon S90 or G10. The 808 compares very favorably. Quite amazing. Kudos to the engineering team at Nokia. I don't think the phone will sell (because frankly, cell phone cameras are good enough for most people's needs right now), but it's a great technology demonstrator.

Spend a little time with the studio comparison tool.Looks like the image quality is better than my recently purchased FZ150 which must be considered one of the best superzooms around (especially at higher ISO). Some will say that it should be with a sensor that large, or for that price, and some will list the features that it is lacking. But hey...let's remember that this is a phone!! Also remember that the best camera of all, is the one that you have when you need. I think that this will be a great gadget for many people who don't print larger than 8x10 and enjoy good quality images. For me....I still prefer to use a camera and carry mine at all times....just wish that Panasonic made a slightly larger sensor on the FZ series (I know...size limitations etc....).

Great to see the 808 PureView receiving your Gold Award – thank you. Our team are both delighted and extremely proud of their collective achievement. :D

Wanted to just take some time out to share some insights/background behind some of the decisions/trade-offs we made given some of the points you noted in the review.

Whilst we wanted to provide a rich set of controls which cover key elements such as focus, exposure, brightness/colour and composition especially for those who take a more involved role in the capture phase, we also wanted to keep as clean and as uncluttered viewfinder as possible. As you might imagine however, it’s very hard to get this balance just right. Personally speaking I find most of not all digital camera viewfinder/info screens are either all or nothing. We continue to seek the best balance in this regard, but equally, recognise we can never get this right for everyone.

This principle led us to a number of decisions we felt all things considered where the right ones:

Specifically…

Histogram: We believe not everyone uses it or knows how to use it and even fewer need/use it all the time. Our solution was therefore to provide one click access from the EV adjustment button. You can either just check it or check and adjust, it’s up to you. But then you can easily hide it too. As aid we wanted to retain as much viewfinder real estate as possible.

Slide zoom: We felt the conventional method of 'assisted' zoom is too slow and lacks sufficient control and precision. What I mean by assisted zoom is basically anything other than manual zoom as on most SLR’s. Whilst manual zoom is fast and precise it’s almost impossible to zoom smoothly, important for video of course. The slide zoom capability we're introducing for the first time with the 808 PureView provides a level of precision and speed pinch to zoom and motorised zooms are unable to provide.

Often with these methods you end up under/over shooting and/or moving the device during the operation. Furthermore, in the case of motorised controls, you’re often having to wait for the zoom to travel from one point to another. With slide zoom it allows you to frame the shot similarly to cropping in photo editing applications and then when happy with the framing, simply releasing your ginger from the display it either quickly zooms to that setting in the case of stills or in video smoothly and more slowly to the pre-set framing. We use an acceleration/deceleration curve at the start/stop phases of zoom too, impossible with other methods and then aim to handle all those pixels as smoothly as possible. Ideally I would have liked it to be even smoother. Zooming out is more conventional. We did prototype the same method of zooming for zoom out but in trials we found it to be counter intuitive.

Again based on trials we found once people had used it for a while it becomes very intuitive fast and easy. As I think you pointed to in your own conclusion. Our own user testing showed that after this period everyone preferred it to conventional zoom methods.

ISO setting: we found the optimal number of touch controls along the side of the viewfinder in a screen of this size to be 5. This dictated the size of the touch targets. No doubt people will chime in and comment on this point but this was the recommendation from our usability experts to achieve good usability in the camera. This in turn dictated the area for text, which in some languages the characters used require more space than the often used English versions. However, as with all the icons we prioritised at least indicating that a function was set to a setting different to the default. Increasing the size of the buttons would have impacted more on the viewfinder which we were keen to avoid.

Exposure: The 808 PureView uses a system which is more heavily influenced (unless faces are detected) by objects in the centre. Half press of the HW capture button (assuming touch to focus has not been set) locks both focus and exposure which for most situations should provide the desired results. However, this is an area I think with some small amount of innovation can improve the experience for the future.

Viewfinder: Given there is no optical viewfinder of course we do prioritise the brightness of the viewfinder in very bright and very dark conditions to increase usability. In bright conditions we increase the brightness of the display accordingly to make it as visible as possible and in very low light conditions we increase the read time (reduce the viewfinder refresh rate) to increase the effective brightness of an otherwise dark scene. Unfortunately this results in a trade-off in such situations in the accuracy of the image as a preview which may explain some of the challenges you experienced with exposure compensation.

Damian, a couple suggestions if I may.1) Allow higher ISOs for lower resolutions (maybe just at lower "zooms"). At least 3200 for 8Mpix and 6400 for 3Mpix. If you look at the top ISOs of modern cameras, their manufacturers are going to much stronger compromises in noise, and customers use that highest ISO number as a proxy for low-light abilities. Besides, camera shake at low shatter speeds is much worse detriment to sharpness than some noise reduction, esp. without mechanical IS. And everybody except some review sites will use it handheld.

3) Add 2Mpix mode, with even higher longest zoom (4x or 4.1x?). After all, this is the resolution of Full HD televisions and most monitors out there, and this is how most (99.99..%) pictures are viewed these days. Besides, it would make very sensible 3Mpix setting look not a lowest possible mode, and allow you to go to ISO10000 at 28mm. :) Meaning your customers would be able to take usable travel pictures in dark museums (and other interiors) where flash is prohibited handheld (ISO 3200 at f/2.4 will produce too slow shutter speeds and blurry images now).

Hi, thanks for the comments. The 2mp setting was specifically selected for the purpose you outlined but also the current limit of certain social sharing sites. It's available in the 16:9 aspect ratio setting and does in deed provide greater zoom as a result.

I personally worked with the team on the icon design. However the design direction is away from 'chrome' and over fussy detailing as it just distracts from the content in our view. So whilst I can relate to your comment here, this was a deliberate design decision. Your other suggestion is an excellent one. We will consider that for the future - thanks.

Thank you for your informative replies. Damian. The Pureview is a killer app! I wonder if there is a potential for Nokia to offer a "software upgrade kit" in the (future versions) WP market, or as a download for the Symbian crowd. That way Nokia wouldn't have to get it "right for everyone", but could do what software enables you to do, offer tweaks, and versions for the photographolics and image quality control freaks. I guess you could offer a "photographer's special 808" or similar as well, although software upgrades enabling tailoring would be more interesting.

Thanks for the reply, Damien.I think 2 mpix mode should be available in 4:3 (or whatever the native ratio is) too, along with it's longer zoom/a\higher ISO capability.Regarding icons, I don't mean they should be fussy, they should be simple, but beautiful, not just simple. You are missing WOW-factor which this product absolutely deserves.I know personally how painful for a product manager when his lovechild ideas are being criticized. But white icons on black (dark-grey?) rounded squares in the picture just does not cut it. For example, they could look like raised (3D) tabs "protruding" from the bezel ("made" from the same "material" as the physical buttons), with sides "raised" to the height of the bezel and the middle "indented" for the finger. And of course, they should look differently for light and dark scenes, as light "shines on them".

Why Dpreview (and/or Nokia) uses "oversampling" when the process of using a lower spacial sampling frequency (from 38MP down to 8/5/3 MP) actually is downsampling ?! Oversampling is just the opposite : converting a low-resolution picture to a higher resolution one (which does not increase sharpness, of course), as it is the case on digital audio devices when the digital audio signal is oversampled from, let's say 44.1 khz to 192 khz or higher to allow the use of higher-quality digital low-pass filters rather than analog filters. Did Nokia marketing guys think "downsampling" was to negative ?

It is oversampling; When producing low-res images, they are sampling at a significantly higher frequency than the output, which is the definition of oversampling. In digital audio it's just the same - oversampling delta-sigma converters typically run at ~2MHz with a 1-bit ADC internally, but output sample rates much lower than that. What you described is upsampling - converting to a higher rate than the original source - which has very few benefits.I think you're looking at it from the wrong direction: because they are oversampling to start with, they are able to downsample and gain improved anti-aliasing and signal-to-noise when producing lower-resolution images.

I don't think it is fair to compare this to a digital camera. This is a device which is really, really portable, and it can easily take very decent pictures. Your digital camera can be used only when you go out specifically to take pictures; otherwise it can be left home. It is a good product. It starts a new trend. Others will follow. Now camera makers should stop trying to shrink digital cameras and making them without viewfinder.

I wonder what if they have chosen to use reasonable pixel count with the sensor that large and maybe a bit better optics, I guess we would have cheaper device with better picture quality, and then I would have considered buying it despite outdated Symbian OS

Exactly what I've been wondering. Imagine if they'd used the back lit sensor techno;ogy and large pixels for actual sensitivity,rather than pixel binning. I don't get it. Large numbers of pixels are a pain in almost every respect (except for those that require a substitue what'sit, but there are big cars for them). It must be relatively expensive to make sensors with such numbers. The sensor can't be that tied in with the OS can it? While it might take better shots than other phones, the trade-offs seem too high. Might as well just pocket an S100. Who gives a rodent's about in device processing?I was quite tempted to try one. Maybe once I get another iPad, I can ditch the iPhone for something like this.Shame about the dissapointing level of improvements on the new iPhone camera though.My limited photographic skill means I can't get past the snapshot feel of these high DOF devices, so they can't replace DSLR's at least for me.

"What it can't do, of course, is provide one of the other benefits of zoom in a conventional optical system - background blur. Even on a cheap small-sensor compact, you can achieve a degree of subject and background separation by zooming in, and reducing depth of field. Not so with the 808."

Actually, as you "zoom in" (crop), you essentially increase the size of the every element of the central portion of the picture, including the size of the OOF circles. 3.8x at 3MP is not much, and f/2.4 on 1/1.2" sensor is not much to begin with, but I am sure you can detect the blur if you have some to begin with. Now, the lack of aperture priority (or at least program shift) means it is hard to actually open the aperture in good light...

I am using this phone about two weeks now and i am very satisfied. No more carrying cameras with bags, all you need is your pocket. And pictures quality is great, vivid colors are fantastic. And good video quality also. So its three devices in one for me. Thanks to Nokia easying my life.

The IQ is amazing for a smartphone but because of Symbian better wait for the Windows version. Probably the Lumia 808 ?Or rather I'dd like to see Canon squeeze a phone into the SD4000IS/IXUS1100 lolAnyway, people will mostly use these pictures to post them on the net so the IQ is more than sufficient.

"Excellent image quality considering the type of device that it is." And that's the problem with this review. Is this a gold award camera or a gold award camera phone? Looking at the weak color, the fixed 28mm focal length, and the long list of "cons" I think it's clearly the latter. If you're cutting it slack for the type of device it is, then you should also judge how well it works for its other intended functions. This is really a review of a particular camera phone technology. And the tech is clever and potentially interesting - in a decent phone.

Sounds interesting but I don't think Sprint here in the US would agree to allow us to use phones that are not available through them or I would have purchased a phone I like on the market and not what they sell.

A fun review but unfortunately a bit breathless and hyped. The ability to use cropping to zoom is useful but the real issue isn't the pixel count, it's the sensor size. And we have yet to see whether the sensor is as good as the reviewer says.

The reviewer seems to want to believe that the Nokia has an IQ that's as good or better than a point and shoot. And on occasion he even suggests the camera is as good as an entry level DSLR.

But if you're going to make big claims, back it up. Show how the IQ stacks up against the G12 or a Rebel in low light -- use the standard DP Review test suite! The reviewer doesn't take that step and his "review" is not up to the usual level of this site as a result.

I'm glad Nokia chose to push the envelop and when they give the phone a more usable operating system, it will be worth a look. But the most exciting aspect of this story is that it raises the bar for the other smartphone manufacturers.

"But if you're going to make big claims, back it up. Show how the IQ stacks up against the G12 or a Rebel in low light -- use the standard DP Review test suite!" Go to that test suite and see yourselve how Nokia blow up G12. And this is best image they can produce . If you want go to different conditions - lowlight - my 50$ 15y old Sony nightshot cam can outperform every DSLR here . That is other issue. Question is which camera have better max quality in light , and 808 beat 99% !

I stand corrected. Generally the DP reviews integrate the picture comparison tool right into the review. Here there was a link that opened a new page and I missed that link.

I would disagree with resuyaber though. I don't think the image quality (as opposed to the # of pixels) was any better than that of the G12 or other comparable point and shoots, and at 1600 ISO the Nokia was clearly worse.

And of course with a real camera you have a lens that can zoom in instead of cropping it's image with a digital zoom. So compare a G12 zoomed in to its 5x max with the Nokia for a true comparison.

As I said, this camera is raising the bar on what a camera phone can do but let's not pretend it's equivalent to a better P&S.

I´m not impressed at all. This phone needs such a large sensor to produce pictures at the level of an 150 € point and shoot? Give me a break. 38MP looks just soft and without any real detail. And even 8MP is far from impressive. Like said on level of an cheap P&S - and these come nowadays mostly with OIS and zoom. In a similar size. And regarding video, I know cheap pocket camcorders that can do better. No hard feelings, but DPreviews statement about "excellent video quality" is just false. Even their own samples prove it. DPreview is no videocamera site which is ok as they are mainly about photography but then they shouldn´t make such statements.So then finally a Gold Award for this phone - it is far from deserving this. Especially for this price.

Clint Dunn, dude, you should also read my sentence again. I wrote about a large sensor...but most cheaper P&S have sensors sized at around 1/2,3". And a lot of them produce better images...the 808-images aren´t really "decent".Yeah, a lot of people want to take pics with their phone with acceptable quality, but this was also possible before the 808 was launched. The stills and videos from the iPhone 4S look better - and I´m surely not an Apple fan. So I don´t see a reason to rave about the 808.BTW: The other difference between this and a 150 € P&S are around 500 €...money that can buy one a good smartphone if needed and there will be some money left for a good lunch LOL.

Lupti, does the iPhone offer zoom without affecting resolution? Do you know of any phones that can take photos like a cheap P&S, and with the ability to zoom without "digital zoom", which reduces pixel count rather than downsample from a larger image?

I had the iPhone 4S, and I currently have a nice Galaxy phone. The image quality of both are good enough for most people, but the intent of this camera was to offer the ability to zoom without reducing MP.

"being one of the most important innovations - arguable the most important - in mobile photography since the smarphone era dawned five or so years ago"

I'll argue that point. This technology has the *potential* of changing the way that camera phones are made but this phone itself will probably not penetrate any market very far. Will other phone makers (or camera makers) emulate this technique? That's questionable. Nor do we know how far Nokia is willing to go with this in future models. In a few years we may look back at this as being important, or in retrospect it may end up being what it is right now -- an interesting curiosity.

I guess my objection was to the use of the word "important"; we're dealing only with potential (your word: 'expectations') here. This could easily become a dead end.

In a sense though we've already seen renewed interest in the last two years among cameramakers in digital zoom technologies and actually producing useful output from them. A few years ago, 'digital zoom' was almost regarded as a dirty word, but now it seems like these features are here to stay. Nokia's technology is a relatively extreme application of these approaches.

since he's only limiting the context to mobile phone photography, i think it's still at least reasonable to claim this is the most important development so far. although i would argue the most important development in mobile phone photography has been apps like hipstamatic and instagram, and maybe even the iphone 4s camera, since people actually own it.

I'm sure Nokia 808 Pureview is a great phone but why 41mp? What program can open a 41mp image? The slightly larger cmos sensor (/1.2) is a great addition but adding more megapixels will not improve the quality of the image, only slow things down.

All this dubious effort to create gold from 1.4 micron pixels certainly earned them headlines and fanfare, burned through their cash, with little else to show. Image quality is barely better than the N8's 1/1.8" 1.75 micron pixels. A one-off show with zero impact on the sorry state of their other cameraphones with or without Zeiss lens: garbage like any other brand's.

I'm all for technology and I think that this little camera phone is a good achievement but I really can't say I am impressed by the images it produces.The higher ISO images are not bad...they are terrible. Low ISO shots are definitely acceptable...especially considering the amount of detail you can get with that many MP but the colors don't look very accurate and WB looks to be an issue in anything but bright sunlight.I am just amazed that some are comparing detail against something like the D800. We need to get some perspective on exactly what this camera/phone can produce.

amazing how nokia and zeiss got to this. nokia did a job i never expected them (nokia) to do in the photography area. they (nokia) did not content themselves to compete in the phone market, but in the photo market. i mean, professional photo market.

man, to have a phone being compared to a d800 to give us an idea how good it can perform is... weird?, great!?, absurd?, annoying? right? disorientating?... to which one would they compare if the d800 were not launched then? haaa!

and zeiss, my gosh... german lens engineering at its best. what the heck of a resolutive lens! and give a look at their lens design. i just found this image of it (http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/images/features/808-lenses.jpg).

Not true, it's 8MP output _at 28mm_ is the same or better as Nikon J1/V1 all the way to ISO 1600, definitely better than any P&S (including Fuji X10 and Canon G12), except Canon G1 X (and maybe Sony RX100, which is not in the comparison widget). Now, zoomed in is the different story.

When you can't do anything to raise the poor quality of your mainstream phone camera, you divert your resources to a marquee product where direct comparisons do not apply. That's what Nokia is doing here, avoiding the battle, to their peril. I don't expect PureView to do anything for the sorry state of affairs in Lumia or Asha phones.

Once WP8 brings Navteq offline maps to everyone, I expect even more people to see through Nokia's hypocrisy and try other brands.

iPhone 5 comes out later this year. The 8MP camera now is impressive, but I am curious how the updated model will compare to this and other phone/cameras. Decent pictures, amazing apps (iPhone has lots), and ease of use. I doubt basic P&S cameras will last much longer.

We are in the Canon Rebel (1st Gen) days of camera phone technology. Just gives Moore's Law a little time. It won't be long before the picture taking, data sending and application loading processes are beautifully streamlined into a <$250 device. It's inevitable.

I have a kid with an N8 (he's had it for about a year). Took it to Europe on a skiing holiday and could hardly believe the video footage that this little "phone" produced. I've worked up some shots in PSE and they are excellent.

Once Nokia sort their operating system out (Now that Microsoft is in on the deal) Apple is dead !

No hard feelings, but I had the N8 for a test and the video footage is far from "excellent". Rather muffled monaural sound, better disable stabilisation as it adds odd "jumping" to the video and average sharpness. So it seems you never have seen decent video footage froma P&S or cheap video-camera. Both will beat the N8 video performance easily. And so the 808 which also produces video footage that is far from "excellent".

I highly doubt that the N8 has stereo mics as it isn´t even mentioned on the Nokia site. And stereo or not, the sound isn´t the best. And yes, mine had an option to enable stabilisation for video - which added more shake to the video instead of removing it.And stills were nothing special. Too much compression. Overall it is a mediocre smartphone.

Not sure if you know it or not but jpeg compression is adjustable on the N8. You can even shoot them at 100% if you like but it really slows down the camera hence the reason for 90% being the recommendation.

"Not only does it feature the highest-resolution sensor of any mobile phone camera, but at the time of writing, the 808 PureView features the highest-resolution sensor of any current camera outside of highly specialist (and very costly) medium format equipment"

The studio test sample shows a green cast at all iso's and at iso 1600 additionally a magenta cast at the right side.What about this, is it no "con"?? Does anybody see it?

And regarding the "pro": "Excellent video quality (and sound)" - agreed for the quality of image and sound - but I am missing a good video stabilisation while moving (like sony's "active steadyshot")! Also the AF and zooming in video could be smoother.

I am willing to order a pureview (having a 5800 and being happy with symbian + nokia navigation) , but...see above...

look at DPR's image comparsons... it exceeds the D800 and D800E on all images for low ISO 100 (which is to be expected as it has more Mp). only Pentax 645D exceeds it at ISO 100. Once it hits ISO 200, it gets noisier immediately even though it still has more details than the cleaner D800/D800E but still not the 645D. Once it hits ISO 400 it goes downhill for noise at 100%, at least under 'normal' light. If there is more light, such as outdoor, it will not fare as bad.

anything with more Mp SHOULD have more details, but not always. especially as one goes into darker scenarios or even into extreme dark scenarios where only hi-ISO helps (not just low ISOs). but in this case, any sensor that has a very high density of Mp per unit area is going to suffer with either too much noise or NR, both of which can obliterate details that would have resolved in better light at the lowest ISO.

given exposure metering is hard to control, it may lack ES-LV (exposure simulation). DPR didn't say.

e.g.there's cross-hatching on the globe in the Indian Ocean (around Seychelles Isles)... that is captured and only exceeded by the Pentax 645D, but not by either D800/D800E at ISO 100 (even ISO 200, although noisier)

at ISO 400... the D800/D800E may be 'clean'... but it also completely loses the detail that was in ISO 100.

all is about pixel density. If you compare the size of the chip to the one of the D800, you can say that it is some 6 times smaller. So, a full frame had to have some 280 megapixels to equal this density. You had to make real big glass, take it far away from the sensor to equal this light concentration. That is the advantage of small sensors and high concentration lenses. It is easy to concentrate light on a small spot, and thus make high pix density on that spot, try yourself with a magnifying glass in the sun. But, if you have to cover a large surface it gets tricky. A FF will always fight with lens quality it needs for a good shot. On the other side, high pix density is a clue in low light and only usable at low ISO. So, is FF just a myth. A D800 performs a tiny bitty better as a NEX-7 with apsc format. No expert will ever see a difference in picture quality between the both, but on the bill you pay for a D800 and correct glass, you see it. Note that the NEX needs good glass too.

I do not understand this "over-focus" on what OS any device is running: If the device (PC. phone, whatever) does its job and runs the apps you need, who cares?

I am a programmer and develop farily advanced systems: The OS is NOT important, but the applications I can run on it is: They make up the system!

A tip on the 808 Blown Highlights: Manually turn on the ND filter in bright sunlight! It should turn om Automatically in Auto mode, but for 3-8 MPix res it does not seem to do this from tests I did yesterday. However, it does seem to work in full res 38 MPix mode. I will do more tests to try to verify this.

Problem is that there are only limited apps available to run on Symbian OS. Given that Symbian is dead now, Developers will not be investing in any new app development for symbian either so the OS is important

I don't want to have to bring another device just to read some excel file, take notes, have some dictionaries, play music and everything a smartphone should be able to do.

OS is paramount, hardware is paramount, phone functions are paramount (it's a smart*phone*, after all), camera comes maybe fourth.If I have to bring with me two devices, they would be a smartphone and a camera, not two smartphones.

@Lensbringer you realize Symbian Belle has a fully functioning Microsoft Office Suite right? (free)a butt load of dictionaries free... 808 etc plays music better than other phones due to its Dolby feature and its immensely loud loudspeaker

would have liked a little more in-depth review and a mention of influencing the shutter speed up to 2.7seconds but this was nice I've noticed the highlight clipping in my use with the 808 but I had assumed it was my amateur hands/skills and not the camera

I still would like to see compact camera with fast (1.4-2.3) short zoom lens built around this sensor. I also believe, that bigger body and (stronger) processor dedicated only for pictures would solve problems with "huge processing bandwidth required to quickly capture then blend multiple 41MP exposures to create an HDR image" and impact of high temperature on image quality (amp glow mentioned in the review).

If I get the message, this is a very good "always-with-me" CAMERA, which holy smokin' pancakes- also has a phone included. Hmmm….now if it was also waterproof and heat proof, we could flip those pancakes...

Thank you for this review. I've been waiting for dpreview to make a proper test, and it's been well worth the wait. Pureview is so impressive I know it is highly likely to make me choose a WindowsPhone provided they can make it perform as well on that platform, and not limit the sensor to 20mp as has been suggested elsewhere.

I'd seen a reduced size sensor discussed for the WP follow on phones since the launch of the 808 as well. Basically the implication being that the 808 Symbian has very low cost components (single core processor, 512MB RAM, 640 screen etc.) outside of the very expensive camera system - and going to a Windows 8 phone will require much more expensive components (dual core processor, serious graphics processor, 1GB memory etc.) outside of the camera system and unless Nokia wants to be selling an insanely expensive phone they'll have to scale back the camera system (Nokia execs have made points to say PureView technology means oversampling and not the 41MP sensor for future phones).

We'll have to wait and see but I would be very surprised if the Windows version has this monster sensor in it because of costs, it should still be very nice of course.

Technically Android is step back, like VHS to Betamax video recorder formats. Android needs more memory and processor power, needs more developer efforts, is less environment friendly, but addicted simple people prefers it, i.e. people prefers giving more money to billionaires losing their time on tapping and seeing Android phone ;) On other site, Windows Phone is still young but from very beginning optimized just for spending less time on effective usage. ;)

It's very clear you have never had a Samsung Galaxy S 2 (yes, i said 2 on purpose, even that has features the rest of the mobile phone world can only dream).BTW: the addicted simpletons buy an iPhone...

Great review. I will definitely be getting a new Windows Phone 8 with Nokia Pureview built in as soon as it ships. Nokia will reveal their Autumn line up September 5th. cant wait...

One comment though. You wrote:

"In use, the 808 PureView behaves much like a conventional cameraphone, purely because of its form factor. If you're used to a phone like Apple's iPhone 4S, or any recent high-end Android offering, you won't have any difficulty adjusting to the 808.

A dedicated focus/shutter button on the left side of the phone acts as a shortcut to activate the camera app even when the phone is sleeping. A 'hard' press is required to open the app and wake the phone - a quick or light press will be ignored, preventing accidental operation of the camera."

I understand that a lot of you have not ever seen a Windows Phone, as a dedicated photo button like the one described above is mandatory on that platform. You should really take a hard long look at the upcoming Windows Phone 8 devices.

I'm afraid you'll be a bit disappointed: as far as we know now, there will no Windows 8 equivalent of the 808. Nokia will use the PureView brand, but the WP8 PureView phones will be conventional cameraphones with conventional sensors and optics, so they will take pictures just like the other phones. Maybe they'll use good quality hardware (like in the N8), but with normal cameraphone sensors and LED flash, so nothing that could be compared with the 808. This is what has been rumored until now, but I guess we'll have to wait to see what they'll actually do. Anyway, it's a good move: they are spreading the PureView brand and building a good reputation, so when WP8 PureView phones will be out, the mass market will think that their quality is the same as the 808, and 99% of camerapohe users can't tell the difference.

Although I hope there'll be a WP 8 Pureview in the lineup, I've seen elsewhere 2013 is more likely. I've also seen references to a max 20mp in WP. Furthermore, Nokia in all its statements refer to bringing "Pureview technology" to WP, which could mean that it's not THE Pureview as applied here, but rather aspects of it such as teh oversampling, some zoom, but less etc etc.

It's to do with the SoC. Nokia have already stated that their first WP8 phones will run dual core processors. The GPU on theses SoC's has a limit of what sensor size it can address and dual cores SoC's are limited to 20mp sensors.

The new quad core SoC's overcome this limitation but none are certified for use by Microsoft as yet.

Symbian made this phone pretty much outcasted. Not to mention MS's announcement of ' Current Window Phone won't do Win Phone 8 Metro " .. go figure - Don't think it worth the price its asking for anyway. There are better phone out there, and if I need a photographic platform there is better camera out there too. The one thing though, this technological progress shown, what would it be like to be implemented in otherwise other sensor in Cameras or Phones.